great problems
Breakthrough

Until recently, my aim in breakthrough was not to lose any games anymore. It’s difficult since there is no draw. So, I’d have to win all my games in order no to lose.I don’t particularly like to win. But losing is harsh and humiliating. If you lose with both colors, you know you were wrong somewhere.

In that sense, Chess is less tough.Mistakes are irrelevant: it is always equal. Now, if you insist in playing badly, you may eventually lose.

Anyway, since some players (wanderer_c, Stop Sign, gardiyan, michelwav, luffy_bot...) seem to be against the idea of me no more losing games, I concede. You win!

No, my main goal is to share with you the beauty of breakthrough. (Actually, it sounds like a nobler purpose than the latter.)

This thread will be devoted to breakthrough puzzles (hard, subtle and/or beautiful problems).

Let this be the first one. What happens if White plays 47.g3-h4?It is a *** (3 stars) problem.(* being easy and **** being very complex)

http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/game/game.jsp?gid=1606181

Some indication: (slight spoiler)For problemists, beauty can come from an exercise in style on a theme. Here the theme is:If White plays A, Black wins with X (and lose with Y)If White plays B, Black wins with Y (and lose with X)This theme is one of the simplest and could be implemented with trivial examples. Here, the variations are interesting and the apparition of the theme is subtle.Have fun!

@basat: After a very quick look, Wanderer does not seem to like your move(s) but prefers c5-d4 — but I don’t have time right now to try to understand why. I’ll try to look at it more tonight and see if I understand why and/or understand edbonnet’s hints and comments.

My original intention was to play 57.f3-e4, but as I wrote to kyle during the game, I returned from vacation and mistakenly played the fingerfehler which I immediately regretted....Kyle showed no mercy!

Actually yes: the two exchanges on d6 and e5 (both dark squares) are a thematic way of weakening the opponent (here on dark squares) by diminishing his number of pawns on dark squares.

Is light/dark squares notion relevant in breakthrough, where the ‘chess-like’ closed pawn structures have no equivalent?

Yes, it is. In the example we just saw, Black had 7 pawns on light squares and 5 on dark squares.After our thematic exchanges, 7 pawns on light squares and 3 on dark squares.This is too unbalanced. And indeed, it’s quite rare that a pawn on e5 is passed.

A pawn controls two squares (one, if placed on the edge) of the same color of its squares.That basically means that if your balance is 7/3, you control only 6 dark squares (and 14 light squares).

Rebalancing your structure takes time: at least two moves in the example 7/3, which you can rarely afford.And additional factor is that if you are unbalanced, your opponent usually "control"the squares you are weak on. Consider the toy example: White: e5,...Black: e6,f7,d7 Black to play cannot play on dark squares without being “en prise”.

One could argue or at least ask if this (equi-)partition of the squares (dark/light)is not somewhat arbitrary?Why don’t we care about balancing the number of controlled squares on a,d,e,g files vs b,c,f,h files for that matter?

The answer is simple: to defend we need to control consecutive squares (L1-distance beeing 1) otherwise the opponent’s pawns can breakthrough. Thus, the balance dark/light is not arbitrary.

Let me give a further example of that theme.

#1599337 wanderer_bot vs. edbonnetMove: 45

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Black to play. Can you exploit the light square weaknesses? **

A small quizz.It is easy to see that one pawn can zugzwang three pawns but no more. How many pawns can zugzwang two pawns?